One of the most interesting things about the Utah legislature's latest attempt to make English the
official language of the state is the Legislative Review Note at the end of the bill. The Note says
"A limited legal review of this bill raises no obvious constitutional or statutory concerns." What
country's constitution did the legislative analyst review?

The proposed Utah law is part of an ongoing trend nationwide to pass laws making
English the required language of government. The laws range from simple declarations of English
as the "official" language of a given state to laws like Utah H.B. 387 which provides "Unless
otherwise required by the United States or Utah Constitutions, all official documents,
transactions, proceedings, meetings, or publications issued, conducted or regulated by, on behalf
of, or representing the state and its political subdivisions shall be in English."

Although the statute states on its face that its implementation will be consistent with the
Utah and United States Constitutions, application of the law is likely to raise questions from
freedom of speech to equal protection. For example, although the federal Voting Rights Act
currently requires bilingual ballots, the Utah law is unclear on issues such as drivers' license
examinations. Moreover, the question remains open as to whether the underlying premise of the
law itself violates the United States Constitution.

The proposed Utah law attempts to avoid legal difficulties both by the language cited
above and by a series of "exceptions" to the general rule. That bill states that "Languages other
than English may be used: (a) when public health and safety needs require it; (b) in foreign
language instruction in the public schools, including the teaching of English as a second language;
(c) in judicial proceedings, when necessary to insure that justice is served; and to promote and
encourage tourism." Obvious omissions from the list of exceptions include communication
related to the public welfare and dissemination of legal announcements. The law as drafted could
leave non-English speaking immigrants unable to communicate with regard to benefits to which
they are otherwise entitled.

Given that the inevitable result of "English Only" laws is the diminution of tools available
for communication, the question has to be asked "Why bother?" Outspoken proponents of
English-only laws cite two main reasons for such laws. First, they claim such laws actually
enhance the flow of information by encouraging everyone to communicate in the same language.
The Utah law, for example, proposes that money apportioned for bilingual programs or materials
be moved to programs for teaching English as a Second Language.

The second argument presented in favor of English-only laws is that they will save money.
For example, the Salt Lake Tribune reported proponents of such laws claim that "English Only"
laws protect the State against lawsuits by immigrants demanding services in their native tongue.
The cost of bilingual and multilingual services is an unfair financial burden on the English speaking
majority according to this view.

When viewed in this light, the tie between English-only legislation and other anti-immigrant laws seems obvious. In its briefing paper on English-only laws, the ACLU concludes
such laws "perpetuate false stereotypes of immigrants and non-English speakers." The paper
concludes that "Such laws do not simply disparage the immigrant's native languages but assault
the rights of the people who speak the language."

Recently, a departing public employee challenged Arizona's English-only law. After the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, found the law unconstitutional, the United States Supreme
Court reversed on procedural grounds. As a result, the legal status of English-only laws remains
open.

The Circuit Court decision, however, has bearing on laws such as the one working its way
through the Utah legislature. The Court found that an integral part of freedom of expression is
choosing the words to with which to communicate ideas and information. Based upon that
analysis, the Court concluded that there is constitutional protection for speaking in foreign
languages. The Court also found that such rights extend to public employees. This finding
suggests that the underlying premise of the Utah law is suspect.

The position, taken by the ACLU, and other organizations, that English-only laws violate
the United States Constitution is not without historical precedent. In 1923, the U. S. Supreme
Court, in the case of Meyer v. Nebraska, struck down a Nebraska law that prohibited teaching
school in any language other than English. In finding that the law violated the due process clause
of the 14th Amendment, the Court concluded that the teacher's right to teach "and the right of
parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the liberty of the
amendment."

At least 23 states have passed English-only laws and several federal statutes have been
proposed in Congress. Contrary to the conclusion of the Utah Office of Legislative Counsel, any
attempt by the government to limit the ability of its citizens to communicate is likely to face legal
challenges, if not from the ACLU, than from individuals and organizations committed to free
speech and the rights of immigrants.